PDA

View Full Version : Very optimistic



DaveDrummer
30th July 2009, 02:57 PM
Hi everyone. I was just talking to my mother and she is a nurse. She was telling me about how we young ones (I am 21) should just do all we can to work out as much as possible. However, she mentioned something that really got me thinking: in our lifetime they will defiently be able to treat this easily/cure this kyphosis disease. Think about medical science. Think about how far it has come. I mean we can cure blindness with lasers. Perhaps in the future they can figure out a way how to recoax the bone into actually regrowing using stem cell and gene altering? Perhaps it will just be a simple injection? I mean we are almost ready to start experimenting with spinal cord treatment in humans. It is possible.

So for you young people like me, don't be sad that you got a bad back so young. Be thankful that you have a lot of years to live! I will be willing to guess that sometime in the future they will be able to cure this with amazing, minimal invasive surgery. I think the longer we wait for surgery, the better we will be. Eventually when we truly need it, it will be much less invasive and dangerous. Just food for thought

mark
30th July 2009, 09:09 PM
Interesting post Dave, certainly does leave food for thought, however sadly i fear it may not be seen in our lifetime, you see they put a man on the moon 40 years ago yet they still haven't found a cure for the common cold much less the majority of cancers out there. Interesting idea though

Stem cell research is such a hot topic at the moment i fear it may take decades just to get the ethics of it all unravelled.

i hope this thread can start a debate going, it would be interesting to read others thoughts on stem cells, me i would embrace it, i don't have any ethical issues with it at all

mark
30th July 2009, 09:11 PM
In fact i am going to move this into the non surgical forum as more people tend to visit that forum :D

Pancake
30th July 2009, 09:58 PM
Dave,

While I completely share your enthusiasm for the hope of better treatments for spine issues, I think Mark makes a good point about some things just being difficult, more difficult that even putting men on the moon.

The biological problems seem to be more intrinsically complex than the engineering problems.

In re embryonic stem cell research, there is no non-theological reason to limit it. Therefore there is no rational reason to limit it. FULL STOP.

The embryos in question consist of ~150 cells. They can't suffer. But the folks with whole body burns and Type I diabetes are suffering as we type. And (former US President) Bush, in his ignorant, theological-based (pardon that redundancy) "thinking," delayed potential solutions to these and other cases of suffering. Religious people like Bush don't care about real sufffering. They care about mythology. He should be ashamed of himself. >:|

mark
30th July 2009, 10:18 PM
Hi pancake, from my devoutly atheist stand point i can't argue with any of your sentiments, it seems you have hit the nail right on the head as you always do

pancake --- :poke:--- Bush and the rest of the right wing so called evangelical bible bashing hate spouting god fearing idiots that make up the right wing US political/religeous establishment

titch
30th July 2009, 11:10 PM
I think - as an atheist - that it is a great shame that both sides have become so utterly entrenched and so opposed to each other. I think David Attenborough explained it very well when talking of his agnosticism: his example was that of termites, which are blind and lack the ability to see him there, watching them and potentially able to shape their lives in many ways. They simply do not posess the organs required to sense him. Similarly, as he says, we may lack the ability to sense a god, should there be such a thing.

I think it's important to remember, especially when railing at people with faith, that atheism is also a position of faith. We can no more prove that god does not exist than theists can prove that god does. The most scientific position is agnosticism - personally I stick with saying atheist, because I really don't think that there is a god, but I'm aware that is a belief rather than a proven fact.

Having said that, I personally am extremely glad that stem cell research is now proceeding at a better pace again. I suspect that serious benefits are a very long way away, but I do still believe the research is a good thing. I hope as well that the improvements in resetting ordinary cells to be pluripotent stem cells will continue because while I don't personally believe that religion should dictate policy (if nothing else, where do you draw the line?), I absolutely support the right of the individual to disagree with the origins of many stem cells. An origin which we all agree is ethical can only be to the benefit of everyone.

mark
30th July 2009, 11:38 PM
I don't have a problem with people who have a religeous faith, more power to them, i do have aproblem however with those who tell me i am going to burn in hell fire and damnation for two thousand years, i mean that is just down right nasty, this coming from people who are supposed to preach love and peace to all, it seems to me that that they preach love and peace to those who follow there rightous path and everyone else be damned, seems a tad un christian to me

If messing with stem cells results in the saving of just one life or makes someones life more bareable then mess away with them for me. Extreme views on both sides of the argument is what does no good to the advancement of science and the prolonging of or enhancing human life, i can not see why someones someones religeous views should stop someone recieving say a life saving blood transfusion. Why let a human life be lost because of such a simple life saving procedure because your faith dictates blood transfusions are wrong at best that is crass at worst its pathetic and should be out lawed

That is the issue that i have with religeon, i may seem to be over simplifying it but i'm just a simple soul, but by god, i do have a lot of soul and it is well deep

To me you can do what you like, but when it interferes with someone elses life or quality of that life or inhibites in any way them recieving medical treatment thats when i get upset. life can not be sustained through faith alone thats a medically proven fact. Faith can not give me a straight back only surgical intervention will thats a fact no amount of theology will convince me or my surgeon otherwise, faith can not magically straighten wedged vertbrae neither can manipulation or any other yoga, pt, or conservative treatment, no argument can or will persuade me on that, its a medical impossability, as is turning water into wine (well unless you the requesite fermentation process, a couple of bags of grapes and a pound of tate and lyle sugar) then i will accept your argument on turning water into wine

I think i have sufficiently strayed well of topic here to shut up sorry

-Chris-
30th July 2009, 11:40 PM
I live in America, and I'm not sure if its as bad in the UK, but stem-cell research has become such a hot topic for the religious right, that it is really hampering a lot of serious advancements - and has gone as far as Bush flat out vetoing a bill a few years ago.

The scary thing is, is that its proven to have some amazing possibilities, things that could eventually save thousands and thousands of lives, and ease peoples suffering. And its being opposed for completely illogical and uninformed reasons, through the cloak of theological morals.

I don't tend to get into theological discussions much, but I am a huge advocate of science and my theory is to let scientists be scientists... they should be the ones making these decisions, not George W. Bush.

Whether or not it may be some cure-all for something such as scoliosis, may not be entirely likely, but its absolutely INSANE that it is being limited at the expense of people lives.

That said, with the advancements made in medicine in the last 50 years, and the advancements made in scoliosis research made in just the last 5-10 years... its very likely that they may find some very effective ways of treating this condition. If this happens in my lifetime great, but hopefully, by the time my future kids are old enough, treatment will be at a point to where if they should have scoliosis, it won't be a life-changing event, but just something they have to "get taken care of."

greenhouse12
31st July 2009, 01:19 AM
On the subject of stem cell research , i watched a interesting programme a few months back about many people with conditions or disabilities . The person i remember most was a young man who was paralysed the neck down ... after a few stem cell research he moved his fingers and toes . It was amazing !

Im not sure i agree with embryo research ... because they have the potential to be a life , its different to someone helping save others with consent like organ donation .

I believe everyone is entitled to there own opinion on the subject

Mustang Sal
31st July 2009, 10:11 AM
I don't have a problem with people who have a religeous faith, more power to them, i do have aproblem however with those who tell me i am going to burn in hell fire and damnation for two thousand years, i mean that is just down right nasty, this coming from people who are supposed to preach love and peace to all, it seems to me that that they preach love and peace to those who follow there rightous path and everyone else be damned, seems a tad un christian to me

If messing with stem cells results in the saving of just one life or makes someones life more bareable then mess away with them for me. Extreme views on both sides of the argument is what does no good to the advancement of science and the prolonging of or enhancing human life, i can not see why someones someones religeous views should stop someone recieving say a life saving blood transfusion. Why let a human life be lost because of such a simple life saving procedure because your faith dictates blood transfusions are wrong at best that is crass at worst its pathetic and should be out lawed

That is the issue that i have with religeon, i may seem to be over simplifying it but i'm just a simple soul, but by god, i do have a lot of soul and it is well deep

To me you can do what you like, but when it interferes with someone elses life or quality of that life or inhibites in any way them recieving medical treatment thats when i get upset. life can not be sustained through faith alone thats a medically proven fact. Faith can not give me a straight back only surgical intervention will thats a fact no amount of theology will convince me or my surgeon otherwise, faith can not magically straighten wedged vertbrae neither can manipulation or any other yoga, pt, or conservative treatment, no argument can or will persuade me on that, its a medical impossability, as is turning water into wine (well unless you the requesite fermentation process, a couple of bags of grapes and a pound of tate and lyle sugar) then i will accept your argument on turning water into wine

I think i have sufficiently strayed well of topic here to shut up sorry

Mark, I agree wholeheartedly.

I'll admit, i'm no scientist so I don't know too much about stem cells, just that they have the capacity to become any part of the human body. Is that right? And am I right in thinking that stem cells are present in a baby's umbilical cord and can be harvested at birth without any harm being brought to the baby or mother? If so, what's the ethical issue? I saw someone mention embryoes - sorry for being thick (and lazy, as I probably could do some research and find out myself) but what is that about?

We can transplant hearts and kidneys and even faces these days, something that would have been thought of as 'playing god' years ago (some people probably do still think this is playing god). So part of me is confident that progress will happen - the frustrating thing I guess is that we are all set to go, but something is getting in the way...

I'm not going to say too much about the religion thing, because in my experience in can cause all sorts of arguments, and i'm not mentally strong enough to cope with that at the moment! All I will say is that I am agnostic (and yes I do have splinters in my backside) but like Mark I have many views about religion being forced upon people and hindering the saving of human life. However, I do have a lot of respect for those that chose to live their life following a faith - so long as they don't try to recruit me or force their views onto others. Religion to me is a personal thing, so why some people feel the need to recruit others into that religion is beyond me.

ScoliJess
31st July 2009, 01:25 PM
My train is too mushed from Tramadol and Diazepam to write anything to contribute to the stem cells and/or religion deate t the mo, but I just loved how upbeat and positive DaveDrummers post is! Made me smile :)

DaveDrummer
31st July 2009, 03:02 PM
Really cool debate going, great points on all sides. I, too, don't really believe in god, but I am very spititual. I feel that everything has a spirity, aura, etc. So much energy we cant feel. It is interesting to note how many people like us are non-beleivers?

I agree w/ the stem cell research and how it should be fully supported. It should not go out of control however. I think spending is the biggest concern, over ethical concerns. I also agree that people who wont support it because it 'alters life' or is 'unethical' can shove it. People who are living today who need help are in much more need of help than an embryonic stem cell. But thats just my feeling, feel free to disagree...its time to get into the 21st century. People who claim faith should direct life, I feel, are insecure and fearful of letting go of the past. But it's all over the place. I mean, most states still have Blue Laws. That is rediculous. Church and state should be entirely seperate. I have a firm belief that we should keep all religion out of politics, but of course, that is never possible, especially when the president is (was) a born again christian. Thats not to say I dont like religion, I think religion in its REAL purpose is a good one, to keep people moral, to help others, to keep a good faith and strong attitude, etc..but it is often abused to weild power over each other, and that is when religion turns bad. I mean how many millions of people have died simply because of 'you don't believe in my god so you are not worthy of this land'. Seriously.

An interesting one is Glenn Beck, the conservative radio,author, TV guy. He has a daughter with cerebral palsy (I think thats the disease..something equally is tragic) and that has really shifted his views on stem cells. Well, ya think?? I mean these people debating against stem cells have no personal experience I feel. The conservatives argue that health care in the US should be superior, non-federally funded, all this great stuff, and then downplay medical research. its pathetic.

Lucy7
31st July 2009, 03:55 PM
I am a Catholic and yes, I do believe in God. And I do pray. I often pray for people I meet in this forum even though I know they are non believers and that they may not appreciate it (or will ever know). My faith helped me at terrible time in my life such as when I watched my father die in agony in a grimy NHS hospital, in times of abuse and other really nasty situations. I will never stop believing in God. It is part of who I am. BUT I never follow Catholic doctrine to the letter. I just feel that it is Rome’s interpretation of what a higher being would want. I am 100% pro choice and I believe in contraception. I find it completely irresponsible for the church to try and interfere with family planning. I was born in Latin America and I used to go with my uncle (a pediatrician) every weekend to the poorest villages as part of his mobile clinic and would see women approach him with utter fear regarding contraception. Later, in my 20's, I managed a mobile family planning clinic in those same villages and it felt so good to put those women back in the driving seat of their lives. I ended up having so many rows with local preachers that saw me and the medical staff as representatives from the darkside….! We even got death threats – do they REALLY think God would endorse that kind of behavior?!!

I just believe that medicine and religion should never be bedfellows. It makes me so angry how long we have debated stem cell research here in the USA whilst so many people are out there suffering. I really believe the answers to so many questions lie within our grasp, but that the human race is too greedy or stupid to realize it.

Pancake
31st July 2009, 04:56 PM
I think - as an atheist - that it is a great shame that both sides have become so utterly entrenched and so opposed to each other. I think David Attenborough explained it very well when talking of his agnosticism: his example was that of termites, which are blind and lack the ability to see him there, watching them and potentially able to shape their lives in many ways. They simply do not posess the organs required to sense him. Similarly, as he says, we may lack the ability to sense a god, should there be such a thing.

Okay then if there is a god, it made us so we wouldn't know it existed. Then folks should stop pretending to know it exists, yes?

And how do we distinguish the situation between no god and an unknowable god? If there is no way to distinguish then the only intellectually honest course is to not claim to have knowledge you don't have.



I think it's important to remember, especially when railing at people with faith, that atheism is also a position of faith. We can no more prove that god does not exist than theists can prove that god does. The most scientific position is agnosticism - personally I stick with saying atheist, because I really don't think that there is a god, but I'm aware that is a belief rather than a proven fact.


Atheism is NOT a position of faith. Atheism is almost empty. It is simply the noises people make when they point out there has never been any proof of any god ever dreamed up by humans.

Science is the only way of knowing. Faith is a way to pretending to know. Religious people would exchange their faith in god for proof of god in a New York minute. Every time, every person. Faith is no virtue. It is a fallback position when you don't have proof.

Assuming the concept of the biblical god is coherent (which it isn't), we can't prove that that god doesn't exist. We also can't prove that Poseidon doesn't exist nor that purple wombats on the far side of Pluto don't exist. That is a very weak argument because although we can't prove many things don't exist, that doesn't mean there is any reason whatsoever to believe they might exist.

Do you think there is a chance Poseidon and invisible purple wombats on the far side of Pluto might exist just because we can't disprove them? Same answer should apply for the biblical god. There is no evidence Bronze Age nomads and Iron Age agrarians living in the middle east a few thousand years ago knew squat about squat and there are BOATLOADS of evidence they didn't what the heck they were talking about. That much we DO know.

:D

Pancake
31st July 2009, 04:57 PM
Religion to me is a personal thing, so why some people feel the need to recruit others into that religion is beyond me.

Because religion is inherently totalitarian.

BeckyH
31st July 2009, 05:03 PM
i'm finding this debate interesting, but i feel it may be steering us off course a bit. i think what titch was trying to kindly point out was not the existence or not of god, but more that as lucy has pointed out, not all religious people are opposed to research/abortion/contraception. it works both ways: i'm sure that there are many non-religious/faith-bound people in the world who oppose these things just as much as religious people do.

i actually don't think i can improve on lucy's phrasing so i'll say no more. the issue of belief is a very touchy one, and i think something else titch was trying to do was ask us to be respectful of the fact that some forum members (whether or not they post, or if someone just finds us through google) have beliefs and may be offended by being tarred with the same brush as people who share some of their beliefs but not others :)

Pancake
31st July 2009, 05:06 PM
Really cool debate going, great points on all sides. I, too, don't really believe in god, but I am very spiritual. I feel that everything has a spirity, aura, etc. So much energy we cant feel. It is interesting to note how many people like us are non-beleivers?

Although I am a heathen/pagan/aztec atheist :D, I too, have a great sense of the numinous. One example, I was on a research vessel in the middle of Lake Superior, no land in sight, and the surface of the lake was so calm it was glass-like. I was immediately stuck by how such a large body of water could be so still, so calm, so motionless.

I have had several such experiences while doing research and at other times. These experiences add greatly to my life but I don't make the mistake of attributing them to supernatural causes. Intellectual honesty prevents me from doing so.


I mean, most states still have Blue Laws. That is rediculous. Church and state should be entirely seperate. I have a firm belief that we should keep all religion out of politics, but of course, that is never possible, especially when the president is (was) a born again christian.

Proselytizing religion is inherently totalitarian. They can't help it. They must be roped and caged to protect innocent people in society. :D


An interesting one is Glenn Beck, the conservative radio,author, TV guy. He has a daughter with cerebral palsy (I think thats the disease..something equally is tragic) and that has really shifted his views on stem cells. Well, ya think?? I mean these people debating against stem cells have no personal experience I feel. The conservatives argue that health care in the US should be superior, non-federally funded, all this great stuff, and then downplay medical research. its pathetic.

When the rubber hits the road, many if not most religious people "find science." Not surprising. Totally predictable.

Europe is way out ahead of the US on this. Europe is in a post-religion period. The US has some catching up to do.

titch
31st July 2009, 05:25 PM
Okay then if there is a god, it made us so we wouldn't know it existed. Then folks should stop pretending to know it exists, yes?
All we know is that *some* of us are incapable of knowing that it exists. A dear friend of mine is a lay preacher, and describes it as everyone having a god-shaped hole in them, just that for some people that hole is infinitessimally small, so small that they are not concerned by its existence. I'm sure the termites in David Attenborough's example could peripherally detect his existence, for example by his shadow falling across them. Perhaps most would simply take it as one of those things that happen, but others might be inspired to the idea that there was something greater beyond, even if they could not fully grasp what. I actually think that "pretending to know" is quite an offensive position to take against people who have honest faith that there is a god, and are in that respect no different to you in your honest faith that there is no god.


Atheism is NOT a position of faith.

Science is the only way of knowing.
I beg to differ. Far greater minds than my own have explained things far more eloquently than I possibly could. Even Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, says that everything we have found out and everything we are likely to does not preclude a creator, it just puts some limits on what exactly could be created.



Assuming the concept of the biblical god is coherent (which it isn't), we can't prove that that god doesn't exist. We also can't prove that Poseidon doesn't exist nor that purple wombats on the far side of Pluto don't exist. That is a very weak argument because although we can't prove many things don't exist, that doesn't mean there is any reason whatsoever to believe they might exist.
I entirely agree! This kind of argument - and the simple fact that I appear to have been born without any "sense" of god (even in my earliest schooling, which was at Church of England schools, I never had any belief) is a good deal of the reason that I don't believe - it simply isn't logical to me. Doesn't mean I'm right though. And it doesn't mean that I have the right to force feed my atheism to theists and expect them to convert, any more than they have the right to force feed me their particular religion and expect me to convert. Proselytising atheism is just as offensive. Many eminent and honest scientists are devout followers of many faiths, and can successfully reconcile the two things.

mark
31st July 2009, 07:22 PM
Stem Cells for Scoliosis

MESA, Ariz. (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- Three to five children out of every 1,000 are diagnosed with scoliosis -- a curvature of the spine that can have serious consequences if the curvature gets worse. But now, there's a new, less painful way to treat it.

At age 14, Matthew Barmore is already six-foot-one with a passion for basketball. But just a few months ago, Matthew's doctor saw a problem -- a nearly 50 degree curvature in his spine. The diagnosis: scoliosis.

"Before surgery, the lump in his back caused by the spine curvature was about the span of both my hands together," Matthew's mother, Rebecca Barmore, told Ivanhoe.

"If the curve progresses, it can have profound affects on heart and lung function," Mark A. Flood, D.O., an orthopaedic spine surgeon at Banner Desert Hospital in Mesa, Ariz., told Ivanhoe.

Surgery to correct scoliosis used to mean cutting a large piece of bone from the iliac crest in the pelvis, then using it to create a spinal fusion so the curve didn't get worse.

The problem with taking bone from the iliac crest is it's a significant source of pain sometimes even permanent pain," Dr. Flood said. "It requires another incision, potential risk of infection, and that bone is gone forever."

But Matthew was able to take advantage of a brand new therapy -- recently cleared by the FDA -- to repair his spine using stem cells harvested from his own bone marrow.

Used with bone from the Bone Bank, Matthew's stem cells would act as a sort of catalyst to support the growth of new bone along the spine and work with permanent screws and rods to fuse it into the correct position. The surgery reduced Matthew's curvature from nearly 50 degrees to just 15 degrees.

Just three months after surgery, Matthew's already playing one-on-one with twin brother Jordan, getting stronger every day.

I'm able to shoot, dribble, run and jump," Matthew told Ivanhoe. "If this is any indication of what's going to happen I think it will just get better."

And now, Matthew's dreaming of a very big future.

"What else? The NBA!" Matthew said.

Scoliosis is much more common girls than boys. Ideopathic scoliosis -- scoliosis of unknown cause -- is the most common type, usually occurring after age 10. Only some cases require surgery.

http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=18661

from the above site

Scientists identify gene

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2007/06/25/scientists_identify_first_gene_linked_to_scoliosis .html

Pancake
31st July 2009, 11:03 PM
Stem Cells for Scoliosis

MESA, Ariz. (Ivanhoe Newswire) -- (snip)

Just three months after surgery, Matthew's already playing one-on-one with twin brother Jordan, getting stronger every day.

Actually, I am told the pedicle screw instrumentation is so good that 95% of kids need NO PHYSICAL RESTRICTION AT ALL to get a good solid fusion and to avoid pseudoarthrosis.

Because of this, there is at least one top surgeon who does not restrict at least some kids. Our surgeon says he restricts all kids only because he doesn't know ahead of time who the 5% are who do need the physical restriction to avoid pseudoarthrosis. And when you restrict all kids, you don't expect any pseudoarthrosis whatsoever.

No need for stem cell therapy.

As far as I know.

Pancake
1st August 2009, 02:13 AM
All we know is that *some* of us are incapable of knowing that it exists.

All we know is that nobody can know things they can't possibly know and that folks who claim special knowledge/revelation can't prove they have it.


I beg to differ. Far greater minds than my own have explained things far more eloquently than I possibly could. Even Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time, says that everything we have found out and everything we are likely to does not preclude a creator, it just puts some limits on what exactly could be created.

Yes it rules out the biblical god (because the concept is incoherent).

Again, this argument was demolished a long while ago by Bertrand Russell and the orbiting teapot.

Hawking would admit we can't rule out invisible purple wombats also but there is still no reason to think that might exist.


I entirely agree! This kind of argument - and the simple fact that I appear to have been born without any "sense" of god (even in my earliest schooling, which was at Church of England schools, I never had any belief) is a good deal of the reason that I don't believe - it simply isn't logical to me. Doesn't mean I'm right though.

It means you are right for yourself.

If religious people convince themselves there is a god then that is right for them. But they can't convince others just on their word and they shouldn't inject these beliefs into the public arena. That means there shouldn't be laws limiting embryonic stem cell research or banning gay marriage or limiting abortion of non-viable fetuses. There are no non-theological reasons to do these things therefore there are no rational reasons to do them.


Proselytising atheism is just as offensive.

Atheists are in a purely defensive stance. Pushing back against non-evidentiary claims is not proselytizing but rather simply making sense. For example, bringing court cases against creationists on school boards who are trying to make innocent kids stupid is a defensive stance, not proselytizing.


Many eminent and honest scientists are devout followers of many faiths, and can successfully reconcile the two things.

They aren't being consistent. It just shows that they can hold two inconsistent thoughts in their mind at once for emotional reasons.

There is a well-known inverse relationship between education attained and atheism which culminates in some 93% of the cream of the cream of the scientists in the US, the National Academy, rejecting the idea of a personal god. The more knowledge you have the more optional religious belief is. And almost all the top scientists in the US (and elsewhere) are exercising that option to jettison religion and the human construct of a personal god. Top scientists who manage to divide their mind and maintain a belief in a personal god are not being scientific and are as rare as hen's teeth because of it. Most scientists are too intellectually honest to maintain a god belief... either you are evidence-driven or you are not.

Note this also means a majority of Europeans are geniuses. :D

I have two kids with scoliosis. I appreciate not being told there is an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god. I can't square that with what is happening to my kids.

mark
2nd August 2009, 12:55 AM
Just to lighten this thread up a little bit

Pay special attention to the wording and spelling of the texts. If you are even remotely familiar with the scriptures you might find this hilarious. This comes from a Roman Catholic Elementary school test. Children were asked questions about the old and new testaments. The following statements about the bible were written by children. The texts have not been retouched or corrected. All incorrect spelling has been left as originally written.


1. IN THE FIRST BOOK OF THE BIBLE, GUINESSIS. GOD GOT TIRED OF CREATING THE WORLD SO HE TOOK THE SABBATH OFF.


2. ADAM AND EVE WERE CREATED FROM AN APPLE TREE. NOAH'S WIFE WAS JOAN OF ARK. NOAH BUILT AND ARK AND THE ANIMALS CAME ON IN PEARS.


3. LOTS WIFE WAS A PILLAR OF SALT DURING THE DAY, BUT A BALL OF FIRE DURING THE NIGHT.


4. THE JEWS WERE A PROUD PEOPLE AND THROUGHOUT HISTORY THEY HAD TROUBLE WITH UNSYMPATHETIC GENITALS.


5. SAMPSON WAS A STRONGMAN WHO LET HIMSELF BE LED ASTRAY BY A JEZEBEL LIKE DELILAH.


6. SAMSON SLAYED THE PHILISTINES WITH THE AXE OF THE APOSTLES.


7. MOSES LED THE JEWS TO THE RED SEA WHERE THEY MADE UNLEAVENED BREAD WHICH IS BREAD WITHOUT ANY INGREDIENTS.


8, THE EGYPTIANS WERE ALL DROWNED IN THE DESSERT. AFTER WARDS, MOSES WENT UP TO MOUNT CYANIDE TO GET THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.


9. THE FIRST COMMANDMENTS WAS WHEN EVE TOLD ADAM TO EAT THE APPLE.


10. THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT IS THOU SHALT NO T ADMIT ADULTERY.


11. MOSES DIED BEFORE HE EVER REACHED CANADA.. THEN JOSHUA LED THE HEBREWS IN THE BATTLE OF GERITOL.


12. THE GREATEST MIRICLE IN THE BIBLE IS WHEN JOSHUA TOLD HIS SON TO STAND STILL AND HE OBEYED HIM.


13. DAVID WAS A HEBREW KING WHO WAS SKILLED AT PLAYING THE LIAR. HE FOUGHT THE FINKELSTEINS, A RACE OF PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN BIBLICAL TIMES.


14. SOLOMON, ONE OF DAVIDS SONS, HAD 300 WIVES AND 700 PORCUPINES.


15. WHEN MARY HEARD SHE WAS THE MOTHER OF JESUS, SHE SANG THE MAGNA CARTA.


16. WHEN THE THREE WISE GUYS FROM THE EAST SIDE ARRIVED THEY FOUND JESUS IN THE MANAGER.


17. JESUS WAS BORN BECAUSE MARY HAD AN IMMACULATE CONTRAPTION.


18. ST. JOHN THE BLACKSMITH DUMPED WATER ON HIS HEAD.


19. JESUS ENUNCIATED THE GOLDEN RULE, WHICH SAYS TO DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU. HE ALSO EXPLAINED A MAN DOTH NOT LIVE BY SWEAT ALONE..


20. IT WAS A MIRICLE WHEN JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND MANAGED TO GET THE TOMBSTONE OFF THE ENTRANCE.


21. THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOWED THE LORD WERE CALLED THE 12 DECIBELS.


22. THE EPISTELS WERE THE WIVES OF THE APOSTLES.


23. ONE OF THE OPPOSSUMS WAS ST. MATTHEW WHO WAS ALSO A TAXIMAN.

24. ST. PAUL CAVORTED TO CHRISTIANITY, HE PREACHED HOLY ACR IMONY WHICH IS ANOTHER NAME FOR MARRAIGE.


25. CHRISTIANS HAVE ONLY ONE SPOUSE . THIS IS CALLED MONOTONY

mark
2nd August 2009, 01:28 AM
Further hilariousness

A new priest at his first mass was so nervous he could hardly speak.

After mass he asked the monsignor how he had done.

The monsignor replied, 'When I am worried about getting nervous on the pulpit, I put a glass of vodka next to the water glass. If I start to get nervous, I take a sip.'

So next Sunday he took the monsignor's advice.

At the beginning of the sermon, he got nervous and took a drink.

He proceeded to talk up a storm.

Upon his return to his office after the mass, he found the following note on the door:
1)Sip the vodka, don't gulp.

2)There are 10 commandments, not 12.

3)There are 12 disciples, not 10.
)Jesus was consecrated, not constipated.

5)Jacob wagered his donkey, he did not bet his ass.

6)We do not refer to Jesus Christ as the late J.C.

7)The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not referred to as Daddy, Junior and the spookTop of Form 1

8)David slew Goliath; he did not kick the shit out of him.

9)When David was hit by a rock and was knocked off his donkey, don't say he was stoned off his ass.
10)We do not refer to the cross as the 'Big T.'

11)When Jesus broke the bread at the last supper he said, 'Take this and eat it for it is my body.' He did not say 'Eat me'.
12)The Virgin Mary is not called 'Mary with the Cherry'.

13)The recommended grace before a meal is not: Rub-A-Dub-Dub thanks for the grub, Yeah God.

14)Next Sunday there will be a taffy pulling contest at St. Peter's not a peter pulling contest at St. Taffy's

mark
2nd August 2009, 01:35 AM
The above posts were not meant as pop at religion they just had me actually crying with laughter, so much so that i just had to share them with you

No offense intended, they are just downright funny

mark

macky
2nd August 2009, 05:07 AM
Whoa, my stomach is aching from laughing, they just cracked me up good and proper.

Macky.

Pancake
2nd August 2009, 09:31 PM
Those were great, Mark!